Severn Valley Railway to launch £4,000,000 share issue.

Do please try to answer my questions, rather than invite me to read through the thread - I have. But I'm interested in your opinions..[/QUOTE]

Guard Jamie

I know I should be flattered that you are interested in my opinions, but I am sorry to have to tell you that having seen how discourteously and patronisingly you respond to an unhappy PAYING customer (collett1930, above) I am totally and utterly disinterested in yours.

Regards as always

GF-G

 

I have reread my post toward Collet1930 and made a few amendments. I certainly do not endeavour to be dismissive, discourteous or patronising. If Collet1930 finds it to be any of these, I will be only too happy to proffer my apologies to him. He has made perfectly legitimate criticisms, I hope that he will take my responses as perfectly legitimate also, not intended to dismiss his criticisms but to explain some of the reasoning behind the decisions that he has criticised.

I will take the opportunity to emphasise that my opinions are my own.

I remain interested in your opinions despite your, in my opinion, discourteous dismissal of mine. However, with your repeated refusal to identify yourself, your repeated criticisms without hint of a valid alternative and your readiness to resort to mud-slinging rather than critical debate, you are in my opinion naught but a troll and I shall treat you as such, by not feeding you.

 

I disagree with anyone who suggests that an SVR gala is 'poor'. I agree that Highley has become something of a bottleneck during galas, but this is only in retaliation to previous complaints. A super gala a few of years back (the exact year escapes me i'm afraid - may have been 2007) involved southern end locals that de-trained at Arley, ran up to Highley light, turned round in the loop and ran back down again. This was a very nifty operation - spoiled by the constant moaning on Highley platform `why can't we get on that train?'. So then, the SVR had to timetable this in, thus causing stock propelling moves - which, understandably, takes time. Your gripe is with those who complained in the first place, and not really with the SVR, who have only tried to cater for people here.

Its actually quite simple. The footbridge is only so wide to allow roughly two people to pass at any one time. When trains arrive at Bewdley on a gala, its understandably busy, and people often try to change trains between platforms 1 and 2. If some goon is peering over the side of the footbridge with a camera, that blocks access to one side. Worse still, if a pair of goons are peering over either side of the footbridge, you create a slalom with a great number of people moving in opposing directions. Discouraging photographers from shooting off the bridge is sensible, because it allows for the efficient flow of people between platforms, and ultimately, for the timetable to be adhered to (as per your previous gripe).

Yes, but to be blunt, you can't really expect to obtain 'world class' photographs from the stations during busy periods. I don't know of the particular move in question (as I wasnt at Kiddy, I was in the winderness, photographing ;-) ), however you appear to be complaining about a visiting loco blocking a semi-permanent loco, which seems strange, especially given that they are both Southern! Ultimately, in station limits, moves such as those mentioned are going to be commonplace - basically, if you want good photographs at an SVR gala and have a couple of hours where you dont plan on riding, leave the stations well alone at peak times! [/QUOTE]

Whilst I have been on the GCR many times, I have never actually attended a GCR gala. I don't think a fair comparison can be drawn between both lines though at galas - the GCR has virtually no areas of 'up and down', whereas the SVR does. It has twice as many stations, and runs all through the night for two days of the gala. I may be biased, but in my view there is no better gala in the country full stop in terms of diversity and value for money on offer.

I hope that it is clear from my reply that the majority of the paying customers gripes have been heard time and time again on the SVR, and mostly involve factors that are out of their hands, as illustrated by the answers above.

Anyway, this is completely off topic and so don't wish to go any further.

 

Chaps, please, its' a discussion forum. People have different views and ideas as well as different ways of presenting them. I would suggest we respect others views, some of which we may not always agree, and at least give them the courtesy of consideration. A well balanced discussion can be very useful. The SVR does many things very well, but concerns about current management direction/methods, Bridgnorth re-development, passenger numbers and Loco problems should surely be genuine areas for comment.

 

Why should GFG be expected to have all the answers when those employed to come up with them don't? Presumably he's critical because the evidence suggests that the current systems aren't working?

 

Everyone has the right to criticise and compliment, regardless of their thoughts on alternatives. However GF-G has been so vociferous in his criticisms of the current management that I thought that it would be interesting to hear his views on how things might be done instead. An honest "I don't know but I'm not happy with the way it is at the moment" would have sufficed. And personally I am not sure about some of his interpretations of the evidence - we all differ, I appreciate that. Clearly he isn't willing to share, and I'm not willing to spend any time further on it.

 

Average monthly number of employees during the year was as follows:

2011 - Full time 78 Part time 63
2010 - Full time 90 Part time 61
2009 restated - Full time 88 Part time 66
2008 - Full time 83 Part time 40 (not a full operating year, following the storm damage of 2007)

All per the Holdings Company published accounts

Patrick

 

is there any break-down of what so many employees do?

even if its just white collar / blue collar.

dsw

 

I assume that is mostly back office function not many off these are operating staff. The number is still quite large i guess the cost of these is heading well toward 6 figures including national insurance and other costs.
I assume if steam works was to go ahead that this number would grow for the extra catering and size of the pub would require full time staff.

 

The SVRLive website has an update today regarding the SteamWorks project, which clarifies a number of issues discussed at length on this thread. I'm not linking it, it is easy enough to find. (Google...)
Main points are that no specific funding has yet been allocated to any particular project at Bridgnorth, plans for all the options are still at the design and development stage.
It looks as though the first two projects are likely to be the previously mentioned store/mess/training facility, for which ground clearance has commenced, as much as anything so that tests can be carried out to see what foundations will be required. Second project is likely to be the visitor centre. These two projects provide in the first case improved operational and workshop conditions, and with the latter, better facilities for visitors, and the opportunity for the railway to improve revenue income at Bridgnorth. The pace at which any development takes place will depend on the success or otherwise of grant applications, which are being formulated.

The Project Manager stresses that any development at Bridgnorth will need to be supported by a "robust business plan".

Anyway, those are just the main points, the full update is there for you to read on SVR Live.

Nothing controversial, actual or intended, in my posting, just passing on facts.

46118

 

G-Fg. If you take the trouble to contact the people responsible, I think you will find that the lagging removed from 70000 was FIBERGLASS.

 

(Sticks head above parapet and moves conversation on...)

Reading the project update referred to by 46118, it talks a bit about the next phase of the fundraising drive; in particular, by going after grant aid from bodies such as "the Heritage Lottery Fund, European and other sources". There is a certain confidence that these might be successful.

However, I can't seem to find any mention of a plan for individual charitable donations to the SVR. Now, at the risk of being accused about banging on about the Bluebell again, I wrote (about 50 million pages back) about our three-fold mechanism for fund raising: shares, grant-awarding bodies and individual donations (both small scale and from HNWIs) with tax recovery via Gift Aid. Of the three, the last of those - individual charitable donation to the Trust - was arguably the most successful: damn hard work for those organising it, but financially successful.

But everything I have read here seems to have two of those three planks, but not the third: share issue, applications to grant awarding bodies, but I can't seem to see anything about small (or large...) scale donations from individuals. So is there a structural reason in the SVR structure for that? Or is it part of the plan, but not yet implemented? Or have I missed it somewhere?

If I wanted to donate £100 I could buy some shares. But if ten of us wanted to donate a tenner each, which would be equally (or even more) valuable to the SVR - how would we do it? And could the railway reclaim the extra £25 in GA if we did so?

Tom

 

Tom: I think the "third plank" is there, but currently hiding away, at least in internet terms. It is the Severn Valley Railway Charitable Trust Ltd, formed from the old SVR Rolling Stock trust, and one of the aims of the new charity is to encourage donations from individuals.

Not easy to access information as yet, but if you go to the SVRlive website, click on "Downloads" in the left menu, and you will see there is a pdf download of the Q & A presentation on 13/1/13. pages 10 to 13 of that pdf cover the present and future activities of this Charitable trust, and apparently £60,000 has already been raised thus. Quite why they dont have a new website up and running is a mystery. Google it, and you get taken to the old Rolling Stock Trust website. Professional fundraisers in action, but no uptodate website. Actually there IS an embryo one, ( www.svrtrust.org.uk) but it only appears to refer to a model railway project, nothing about its wider aims. Sadly the SVR has never been at the forefront of internet technology, but has started to catch up somewhat.

46118

 

Couldnt agree more Jamessquared.

As I have said before on this thread (about 49 million pages back ) this whole share issue appears to have gone off at half-cock - and has not have been thought through properly before going public. There has been a lack of consultation, lack of an agreed(-ish) design, lack of clarity in the prioritisation order of the shopping list, lack of clarity about other funding sources and the means by which these will be obtained, lack of clarity about the liklihood iof sucess of obtaining these other funding streams, etc.

From what I have seen the preservation movement is always willing to help each other. But I would put good money on my assumption that the SVR didnt ask any other railway who has been through this process for any help or information as to how best to approach and deliver this share offer, probably hiring in consultants instead (and from Jamessquareds posts on here then the Bluebell looks to have been an ideal candiadate to have offered some advice and pointers).

The problem is as I read it that the SVR is now up agaisnt a pretty tight timescale, if the plan revsions do not get it right this next time then there simply isnt the time left to have another go at getting the proposals right.

Ive got to agree on the other point of things being very unclear as to how to go about donating on a regular basis. I am a small SVR shareholder, but I have only ever bought shares whenthere has been a share issue. I have been blissfully unaware, until reading on this thread, that you coudl buy shares on a regualr basis. Over the nearly 20 years I have ben a share holder I would quite happily have set up a regular share payment of say £10-£25 per month and supported the railway in that way. But as I didnt know that that was possible then I havent done it, result the railway has lost out. In tghe past couple of years my earnings have taken a real turn for the worse (partly my choice to take a less stressful, and lower paid,but more rewarding job) and so I do not have the finacial ability to 'donate' on a regular monthly basis. This poor ciommunication from the SVR is apparently from other postings and discussions I have had over the years par for the course.

 

I think we are returning to the concerns originally expressed by GF-G, in a time before he was sent to the naughty step. The problem sits with the way management decisions were originally arrived at concerning the share offer. With so much good will from members and shareholders, it is difficult to understand why so many open goals have been scored.


I hope lessons have been learnt, and those of us who have not bought shares can be convinced that our hard earned cash will be put to productive use for the future benefit of the SVR.

 

I think the SVR management are starting to realise they have mistakes and are making efforts to improve communication. The issues are going to be that 1) it has not happened sooner and 2)many will look back to the past and critisise for what has happened.

At the Q&A on Saturday it appeared that there was a realisation that what had been put forward was not what most wanted (especially in the looks) I also think that they are being swept along by wanting/ needing lottery money which appears to force recipients into having to have some educational aspect in this case the additional visitor centre at Bridgnorth, which many of us feel takes away car parking space and does not help.

I am sure Tigger will feed back that there is an opportunity with shares to encourage monthly giving, something the new Charitable Trust appears (from the presentation) to be targeting.

I do not think that the SVR is different to many organisations in terms of how its communications are viewed. Communcation has improved, although it can still be made better.

 

@svrofficialsite:

Pick up The Times tomorrow for more about our Share Offer #shares - a chance to own part of our national treasure Severn Valley Railway - Shares Issue

Patrick

 

Thanks 46118. Not brilliantly obvious, and I hope the model railway stuff is just in the nature of "test pages". Nothing against model railways, but I wouldn't feel comfortable donating money if that was what ultimately happened to it.

One advantage of Trust funding (apart from the obvious tax advantages of reclaiming Gift Aid where allowable) is that you can have tighter control over what the money is spent on, especially if you set up "reserved funds" within the Trust. So for example, I fund the Bluebell Atlantic via the Bluebell Trust, and I can be absolutely certain that my donation can only be spent on that project: indeed, except for some very closely prescribed reasons, the Trustees would be committing a fraud if they used the money for any other purpose. This point caused a bit of consternation in the early years of digging out the cutting, because people saw hundreds of thousands of pounds in the Trust account and wondered why we couldn't put that towards digging out waste. The reason was that it had been donated for other projects (not just the Atlantic, but a whole range of projects around the railway) and it would be fraudulent, as well as a betrayal of trust, to use that money for purposes other than what it had been donated for.

Whereas, if you give money to the PLC by buying shares, to a much greater extent you are simply funding the directors to operate the railway as they see fit within the fiduciary duty they have to the shareholders. So if you have a big shopping list of projects, while the directors have a responsibility within the terms that they have offered their prospectus to pursue those projects (and not do something completely different with the money), you can't say, for example, "I want my £100 to be spent on Hagley Hall" or "I want it spent on new volunteer accommodation". Whereas if you had a Trust with reserved funds for those projects, you could specifically target your donation where you wanted it.

Obviously that has some downsides - for example, you may end up raising 20% of the money needed for several projects with a total cost of £10million and thereby achieve none of them because none of them has enough money; whereas if the PLC raised 20% of £10million cash call, at least they could prioritise one or two projects and mothball the rest. But the big advantage of funding via a Trust is that it is easier to target different interest groups to fund the one project they are passionate about, rather than just have that project as an aspiration in a big shopping list that, if you give money towards, may not actually get funded in the end.

Tom

 

Think you meant "own goals". Scoring open goals is generally considered a good tactic for winning matches!

Tom